The Voynich Ninja

(23-08-2026, 06:01 PM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Linda, you're right. There comes a point where I get lost in the whole tangle of texts.

  Yesterday, I posted something describing and explaining the central rosette—the sphere of the fixed stars. You replied that you agreed with me until I mentioned the common medieval belief that the healing properties of herbs came from the stars. But what I am saying is not some strange, esoteric doctrine; it is the doctrine of Saint Albert the Great, who, in De vegetabilibus (Book V), explains the natural forces acting upon plants as well as occult forces, such as the virtus caelestis. It is this latter force—the one provided by the stars—that leaves a cosmic imprint on every herb, along with its healing virtue.

My issue wasn't with the particular idea that stars might affect herbs, it is that your ending statement seemed to apply to all the other things you were saying as well, like stars existing and travelling inside tubes, or that the containers are filled with substances distilled in the realm of the fixed stars. By saying i was with you, i meant I was understanding how you are seeing things and how they come together.

I can accept that is what you see in the vms, but I don't think it is based on any common medieval thought, or that you can jump to the conclusion that because you saw that, they must would have had done so too, (if that is the correct tense in this case, which i fear it is not!).

It does seem others agree

Quote:   Healing power comes from God through the celestial spheres. No one in the Middle Ages thought about chemical processes or photosynthesis. And this entire—perfectly orthodox—concept is what, in my opinion, is conveyed in the central sphere of the Rosettes, with those sumptuous vessels that seem to gather that virtus caelestis of which Saint Albert the Great speaks.

Healing power? Is that the influence the stars have on the plants? I agree, no one was thinking photosynthesis.

I believe people then would think about the sun, heat and light are needed to make plants grow...more of my tomatoes turn red on days with full sun than on cloudy days, and certainly more than turn red during the night. (I pick them at first signs of ungreen and let them ripen in my kitchen, usually have to wait until later the next day if it is sunny, for more to pick, or have none to collect if cloudy.). I know that if I plant my beans too early they don't like it because they don't like the cold.

I believe they would think about the moon, insofar as cycles go, and insofar as the correlation of the moon's infuences with water, ie tides, which probably affect water tables and evaporation and subsequent precipitation and the whole water cycle, although they probably did not go so far as I just did in their thinking about it. Some plants respond to the moon, so there is influence that can be witnessed.

The planets and stars, I guess that would depend on your upbringing and what gets taught to you, or what you notice about them. I don't think there is anything you can prove one way or another through personal experience about a star's influence on a plant, so it would likely be a belief. I believe such beliefs existed, to differing degrees, and they were probably distributed unevenly as well, ie different beliefs spread out over different places and time. So it's hard to say what they would be specifically without knowing more about the where or when.



I seems like others agree with the idea of vessels of virtus caelestis, however, it seems that Saint Albert would not have thought of it as he believed the makeup of the spheres of the sky was different than the elements on earth, that they were solid and crystalline, so would not have placed earth-type vessels there, even metaphorically.

Quote:   ololololo, I never said that nonsense about stars shaped like tubes. What I said is that the authors of the Voynich use the tubes to channel the influence of the stars.

   I do not present my interpretations as indisputable truth. What I do is formulate probable hypotheses, using the intelligence we all possess to draw inferences based on what we know. I have always maintained that one does not need to see a manuscript like the Voynich with clear text to understand the message conveyed by its images.

I do not believe that medieval minds would look at the rosettes and see what you described, without first a like minded person of the time to tell your story to them first.

I appreciate that you do not present things as indisputable, I think we all have to approach with that mindset.

(24-08-2026, 06:19 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not believe that medieval minds would look at the rosettes and see what you described, without first a like minded person of the time to tell your story to them first.

For Baresh, Marzi, and the author of the names of the months in the Zodiac, it was already incomprehensible.
We can't claim that it was understandable to anyone except the author themselves.
It’s possible that the author could have been an excellent storyteller, but still, there’s a question I asked Antonio — and it remained unanswered: how can I figure this out on my own during an independent investigation? Let’s say I see pipes. Let’s say I think something is pouring out of them. Let’s say I think this something is spilling onto the surrounding spheres. But how am I supposed to arrive at the idea of astral influence?

(24-08-2026, 06:54 PM)ololololo Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(24-08-2026, 06:19 PM)Linda Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I do not believe that medieval minds would look at the rosettes and see what you described, without first a like minded person of the time to tell your story to them first.

For Baresh, Marzi, and the author of the names of the months in the Zodiac, it was already incomprehensible.
We can't claim that it was understandable to anyone except the author themselves.
It’s possible that the author could have been an excellent storyteller, but still, there’s a question I asked Antonio — and it remained unanswered: how can I figure this out on my own during an independent investigation? Let’s say I see pipes. Let’s say I think something is pouring out of them. Let’s say I think this something is spilling onto the surrounding spheres. But how am I supposed to arrive at the idea of astral influence?

I think you are saying there is no way to do so, re the bolded part. That's what i mean, too, i would not have seen it his way without Antonio unfolding that world. But to say that it equates with the thinking at the time, and to apply that equally to all the parts, I can't do that math.

I think i can see what he is going for when he outlines it, but I can't agree that this is definitely what the author(s) meant to convey, or that it is what anyone else would obviously see in it, it is all too ambiguous to be clear, and has to fit the constraint put upon itself that the entire manuscript is all about one subject, although I can see how he can say that, too.

Also, some of my own theories require prior familiarity with certain things for some of the imagery to work as mnemonics, so I can see this being the same for this one, and what I think I see of what Antonio is saying that I think I understand, I might not have right at all.

I agree that the nymphs in the zodiac and in quire 13 are the same, they stand for the same things, in some way, whether it be space, time, or just decoration. I see commonality with quires 13 and 14 too.

By the way, quire 13 is my favorite way to describe that section, it bypasses those other conventions and saves me from putting any unwanted spin on the naming of it. Quire 20 is also shorter than "starred paragraphs", and there are also others of those elsewhere. I say Zodiac because it is considered 2 quires. I say Rosettes because they aren't necessarily what I mean when I say quire 14, but I think that is related too.

@Linda, the point isn’t to prove Antonio wrong, but to assess subjectivity. Where can I find similar details, and how can I understand these ideas myself?
A good explanation doesn’t consist of saying, for example, “these are pipes, so something is flowing out of them, so this something is flowing somewhere,” or “I see it as pipes,” but rather of clearly stating what this argument is based on and how it can be proven.
Let’s assume that Antonio assumes that the planets are marked inside the spheres. How can he prove that Rosetta, located at the top left, is the Moon? He can prove this by noting that it has a yellow color, that it can be divided into two parts — crescents — and that it is located opposite Earth (or in the same row as Earth).

I’m sorry for starting to explain, but it’s for the sake of completeness

It is extraordinarily difficult to convey ideas regarding the imagery of the Voynich manuscript. I attempt to do so based on my own experience. I am well aware that any medieval image is like a hieroglyph that must be deciphered, because its meaning may well differ from what we see.

  I am convinced that any educated person in Europe would know how to interpret the images in the Voynich manuscript. They would not need to read any text. Why can’t we do it? Because we do not live in the same world; we do not operate within the same mental framework.

During the era of the Voynich manuscript—the early 15th century—astrology was studied at universities. It was a respected science, to the point that a bishop like Pierre d'Ailly believed planetary alignments, such as those of Jupiter and Saturn, heralded major political or religious changes, like the birth of Christ. This seems completely absurd to us, but by dismissing it as pseudoscience, we overlook the immense importance astrology held for humanity at that time. The Voynich manuscript is an astrological book, and that is, I would say, the primary reason we do not understand it.

   As for the Rosettes foldout, it can be nothing other than a representation of the medieval universe. Over time, I have set forth numerous reasons to demonstrate this. Naturally, human prejudices are powerful, and there will be those who do not believe me and hold a different view; however, they must substantiate their position and present a hypothesis that rivals my own.

(25-08-2026, 09:19 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the Rosettes foldout, it can be nothing other than a representation of the medieval universe.

This is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Why not? 
The arguments “it’s too simple,” “it’s impossible,” “it’s silly,” “they didn’t do it that way in the Middle Ages” are not accepted.
[attachment=17381]

(25-08-2026, 09:19 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.however, they must substantiate their position and present a hypothesis that rivals my own.

Antonio, there are many theories, even those that can compete with yours. That’s exactly what I consider arrogance — to consider your own theory the most justified and the most proven, and to present it as such.

Quote:As for the Rosettes foldout, it can be nothing other than a representation of the medieval universe.

Well, some people suggested it's a map of some part of Italy.
Other believe it doesn't really mean anything and is all humbug.

Are you able to refute this claims? If not, then how can you be sure so sure about your opinion.

You didn't answer my question what each rosette means in your model and how they are related to celestial spheres. At moments you are incredibly sure and even cocky, at another time you become very vague which allows many different interpretations.

By the way, is there any single document presenting your views in the current state or does anyone have to read 188 pages of the thread?

(25-08-2026, 09:19 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.As for the Rosettes foldout, it can be nothing other than a representation of the medieval universe. Over time, I have set forth numerous reasons to demonstrate this. Naturally, human prejudices are powerful, and there will be those who do not believe me and hold a different view; however, they must substantiate their position and present a hypothesis that rivals my own.

I'm seeing a couple of logic/reasoning errors there.

Firstly, the "it can be nothing other than..." is an example of what's known as the Holmesian Fallacy (after Sherlock Holmes). In short, it could be something you haven't thought of, or something you have incorrectly dismissed.

Secondly, it absolutely is NOT necessary to present a better alternative in order to critique (or even reject) a hypothesis.

(25-08-2026, 09:19 AM)Antonio García Jiménez Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I am convinced that any educated person in Europe would know how to interpret the images in the Voynich manuscript. They would not need to read any text.

But Baresch was educated, and could [EDIT] not read them.  And the doctors he showed them to could not read them either.

There were more or less standard "graphical languages" for the various fields.  Alchemy had its own conventions: sun = gold, moon = silver, eagles, corpse in grave, etc.  Religion had its own: crosses, halos for saints, blessing hands, lamb, etc.  Astrology had the signs etc.  Astronomy and cosmology had the spheres.  Even herbals had the snakes for snakebite remedies, faces in roots, etc.  History has castles for towns, crowns to mark kings, etc.

But it seems that the VMS artist did not use (or know) any of those "languages"...

All the best, --stolfi

I didn't say read the text, but rather interpret the images in the Voynich manuscript. In the early 15th century, educated people would have known how to do so. Two hundred years later, when Baresch lived, it might have been a bit more difficult for them. However, Baresch knew it was a medical book, and that is what it is. It is not an encyclopedic compendium of various subjects, but a codex with a single theme.

   Baresch’s description is minimal. He did not mention the Rosettes foldout, but he did speak of alchemical content—surely referring to the female figures in Quire 13. He did not see women bathing.

    It matters very little to me if I’m called arrogant at my age, something I have never been. It strikes me as more arrogant to say, as Oscroft does, that it is not necessary to present an alternative idea in order to reject a hypothesis. You simply reject it because you feel like doing so.

   ololololo, I’ve seen your wonderful Rosettes treasure map, with two cities, the sea, a mountain, a lake, and three temples. And in the center, the island with the treasure that must be guarded, with all these cannons surrounding the coast. What do you want me to say? It’s what would have occurred to a child.